Is global warming science a done deal?

Letters to the editor on climate change and 'Unsettled science' op-ed, for Feb. 25, 2014

Can’t wait for certainty

“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” If that’s Charles Krauthammer’s belief, why does he expend so much energy confusing his readers (“Unsettled science,” Feb. 22).

“I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.” No one says they know “exactly what this will cause.”

Can any physician predict the exact course of a cancer diagnosis? Of course not. But is that reason enough to refuse chemo when the doctor prescribes it? Do our climate scientists know if this cancer is lethal? If they do, I’d like to pay attention. For my children’s sake, I can’t wait for the 100 percent prediction.

Climate change threats exist

Climate science may be incredibly complex, but risks can be assessed. While modeling can’t predict all variations, 98 percent of peer-reviewed climatologists warn of danger.

Many models are remarkably successful, but none is perfect, especially in gauging exactitudes. (Will La Nina appear and cool surface air but swirl heat deeper into oceans?)

Krauthammer mentions a couple of misleading points. He may claim to be agnostic on climate, but he sounds uninformed, scornful and reckless rather than contemplative of threats nearly all climatologists, National Academy of Science, military strategists, reinsurers, oil industry, etc., say we face, and we already see.

Here’s a reasonable analogy: Modeling can’t say exactly which cigarette smokers will die and when, but the risks are scientifically settled.

John Reaves

San Diego

Op-ed was factually wrong

Regarding Charles Krauthammer’s article that global warming as “settled science” is a myth, there is no scientific debate that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Also, it is known that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is rising, and the average global temperature is rising with it. Evidence of global warming is seen in melting glaciers and Arctic ice.

Krauthammer cites a study that mammograms don’t reduce breast cancer deaths. He then asserts that if something as “certain” as the need for mammograms isn’t “settled science,” global warming can’t be “settled science.”

Krauthammer doesn’t mention the mammograms in this study were taken three decades ago using outdated equipment, and interpreted by doctors not trained in mammography. Climate science, like medical science, is constantly advancing. Today’s climate scientists are highly trained in their field — they are not, as Krauthammer states, “white-coated propagandists” and “whores.”

Krauthammer’s rant is factually wrong. It illustrates his ignorance more than it discredits the climate scientists he castigates.

David Engel

Founder, STAY COOL for Grandkids

Del Mar

Global chaos out there

For a long time the term “global warming” has been bandied about. Our society tends to take terms literally. Such is not the case for this term.

The correct terminology is “climate chaos,” which contains a much broader sense of what is happening with our climate.